Evidence of meeting #24 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was breach.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
About the question of privilege regarding the Prime Minister.
Liberal
Arnold Chan Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
Yes, we'd like to know whether you're prepared to speak to that today.
Acting Clerk, House of Commons
We have other engagements. We had counted on being here until noon.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
Actually there is one thing. It's conceivable you would know the answer to this.
This is for you, Mr. Bosc, particularly. I've been on this committee for over a decade. It's the first time we're faced with having two matters of privilege before us at the same time, but I'm sure it's not the first time it's ever happened. Is there a normal practice for how procedure and House affairs, or the relevant committee in whatever Westminister system, ought to deal with them when it has two matters of privilege? Do we just do them chronologically, in the order they come to us, or what is the practice?
Acting Clerk, House of Commons
This question came up earlier. In fact, it's up to the committee entirely to decide on its priorities. Since there is no obligation to report at all, the committee can do what it wishes on either case. Therefore it follows that if the committee has other priorities, it can decide itself in which order to pursue them.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
I was absent earlier. It sounds like you've dealt with this, but let me ask the question. The committee is not actually required to report back at all to the House of Commons. It could simply say it is not going to do anything.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you, Chair.
If I'm moving ahead of the debate I'm sure you'll tell me quickly. I'm jumping ahead to the business part of it, but they are all linked.
We have two matters of privilege, and one directly involves named members. Therefore the issue hangs over, in this case, the Prime Minister, whereas for the other one we have unknown people. When it comes to these kinds of things, I always think what if it were me at the end of the table facing the rest of my colleagues, what would I want? How would I want to be treated? What would the environment be like? I have to tell you if something like this were hanging over me, I would very much appreciate a quick hearing to deal with it effectively. Whatever it's going to be, don't leave that hanging over me especially as we head into the summer.
Just based on that thinking alone, Chair, I'm hoping that when we move to the business portion in about 10 minutes we would acknowledge that that matter of privilege should take precedence over this one, given the fact that there are named individuals involved. This hangs out there over them that whole time, and that's not to anyone's advantage.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Okay, I'd like to thank the Clerk and the Law Clerk for coming. We've had you a lot this year and we really appreciate that. We know you are really busy, and we appreciate your time.
We'll suspend for a minute and then we'll get back to business in just a minute or two, not very long.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
We are in order.
Before we start, there are two things.
Welcome, Karen Vecchio.
Second, at a previous meeting, Mr. Reid asked our researcher to research something, and I just want him to respond to that.
Andre Barnes Committee Researcher
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's the same question that Mr. Chan had for Mr. Bosc. It was whether or not there were similar instances of premature disclosure of a bill on notice found in other jurisdictions. Going back to 2001, I looked into the U.K. House of Lords, the U.K. House of Commons, the Australian Senate, the Australian House of Representatives, and New Zealand and I did not find anything.
I would note that I found cases of premature disclosure of committee documents that were in camera, but that happens quite frequently. In fact, it has happened fairly recently here. It's more analogous to a case that happened not that long ago when a pre-budget consultation document was leaked, so it's not necessarily analogous to the case before the committee.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
What about the instances cited by Ms. Vandenbeld and Mr. Graham? They're from our jurisdiction, not from Australia, but are those sufficiently parallel to look at? They never came before the House, though. Is that the problem? Is that why you didn't look at them?
Committee Researcher
Those were included in the briefing. As I understood it, the request was to check other jurisdictions.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
Is that because such leaks haven't occurred, or because a convention has developed that it's okay to have leaks of that sort, or because the rules of order are just different?
Committee Researcher
It would only be speculation on my part to comment on that although it might just be a specific Canadian convention that, when a bill is on notice, that bill is off limits. I could look into other jurisdictions to see if they have something like that.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
Maybe that's the thing to do, to actually look at whether the rules are different. It's harder to find practices because they're often not codified the same way. Would you be able to try that?
Committee Researcher
I can either check in their manual, which is the equivalent to the O'Brien and Bosc, or I can just contact their clerk's office in those jurisdictions to get back to me.
Liberal
Arnold Chan Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
Before we go to the second matter, I want to just finish dealing with the first matter.
I want to dismiss Mr. Bosc and Mr. Dufresne, given that we're starting to have an internal discussion here about where we want to go with the issue of privilege.
My sense of it coming from the table or from the clerk is that it's ultimately up to us to decide what the nature of privilege is. What's really important is that, if we're to do anything, it's to give clear guidance going forward. I think that might be the point that you're making, David; let's set the ground rules so we have a clear understanding of what's acceptable practice and not acceptable practice. I have no problem with that because we can then avoid getting into this kind of conundrum, whereas I'm scratching my head asking myself if this is a breach of privilege or not.
It's incumbent upon us to set the ground rules. Maybe there is that lack of clarity that you noted, Scott, with this sort of creeping, evolving conventional practice of talking about things. The question is whether we cross the line or we don't cross the line, particularly once matters have been put on notice before the House. That's what I'm struggling with.
I'm also in your hands as to where you all want to take this. Are there specific witnesses?
I get the point. David has asked the question: has an investigation commenced with respect to this? Right now I have no sense of where the breach comes from. I'm just going to be upfront about it; I have no idea. It could have come from anywhere. I'm in your hands with respect to where you want to take this.
We do not want to have the situation where parliamentarians are not the first ones looking at these substantive pieces of legislation that we ultimately have to vote on. I get that point and I'm not dismissing that in any way. It is a very serious issue for me, and I think for all members on the government side, which is why the chief government whip said that, if there is in fact a determination of breach, we apologize for the fact. Let's put some processes in place. I'm all for it. I just want to get it clear.
I want to be able to say where the bright line is so that we know what to do. What's the guidance? What is the standard of practice?
I'm in your hands.